<< With 4MB video ram the biggest design flaw in history since the n64 rom modules! >>
Yet another classic troll statement from our good ol friend, Hardware.
You seem to be quick to tell people like LXi that they're not up to their specs, but quite frankly, you're the one who seems to be just a BIT misinformed.
It comes as somewhat of a surprise to me that nobody has really mentioned that the PS2 uses embedded video memory. This means that the memory is built right into the GS's processor die and benefits from the full clock speed (150MHz) and a massive 48GB/sec local memory bandwidth (notice how I said local; the the core bandwidth of the PS2 outside of the GS's bus is actually 3.2GB/sec). Using embedded memory has its advantages. The key advantage is its ability to swap textures within the graphics bus at alarming speed. 4MB doesn't seem like a lot when you compare the PS2 to your latest GF2 Ultra with 64MB of DDR memory, but you're really comparing two entirely different beasts. With embedded memory, you get much faster texture transfers, and thus these textures don't need to remain resident in memory for near as long as they would on a external memory solution used by every single consumer-level graphics card. Really, 4MB is sufficient (for now, at least) for what the PS2 was designed to do, and that is to output to TVs at standard NTSC resolution (which is only 480 lines of horizontal resolution, at 60Hz refresh). We're not driving 19" displays at 1280x1024x85Hz here! Naturally, higher resolutions eat up more memory because of their larger pixel counts.
Evidently, you don't even OWN a PS2 (hell, I'd even be suprised if you actually own one of those NVIDIA cards you brag about so much). I tend to agree with pg19 about the Madden 2001 PC vs. PS2 comparison. The PS2 version wins HANDS DOWN (unmatched playability and quality).
Don't take this personally man, I just feel that comparing the PS2's graphics engine to that of NVIDIA's newest toy is simply ludicrous.